January 11, 2010

"It was all in the context of saying positive things about Senator Obama. It definitely was in the context of recognizing in Senator Obama a great candidate and future president." So said Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine, about Harry Reid saying that Obama would be a fine candidate because he's "light-skinned" and has "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

Is Harry Reid a racist? It depends on what the meaning of racist is:

If by "racist," you mean somebody who feels antagonism toward black people, then Harry Reid isn't a racist. Harry Reid thinks we are racists.

If by "racist" you mean somebody who would use other people's feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power, then Harry Reid is a racist.

Does the term “racist” indeed normally mean “somebody who would use other people’s feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power”? I don’t think I’ve ever heard it used this way; and while I certainly recognize that words can have multiple standard meanings, I’m skeptical that the second meaning Prof. Althouse suggests is indeed standard.

The reason why I put it that way is not because I saw that as a standard meaning. It is intended to express what I think is exactly what Reid was doing. The clause begins with "if." Seen that way, I'm saying: If what Reid did is racist, Reid is a racist.

Now, it's a separate question whether racism should be defined like that. Perhaps a narrow definition of "racist" is desirable. The word is so inflammatory, you might want to reserve it for those who think people of a particular race are inferior and deserve to be treated differently. But maybe our understanding of the word should be refined so that it covers those who use race in other ways that we disapprove of. My post was intended to offer the suggestion that we ought to disapprove of what Reid did with race and for that reason we ought to adopt it as the definition of racist.

Volokh says that if my proffered use of "racist" isn't "standard"...

... then it seems to me a bad idea to try to redefine “racist” this way, because of the substantial possibility that (1) listeners will misunderstand...

I disagree. I want to challenge people to think about what is "racist," not save the word for the meanings that have already been established. Let's use it in ways that are useful. And let's talk about and develop the meaning of this powerful word, not just try to make life easy for listeners.

... and (2) will misunderstand in a way that is unfair to Sen. Reid, because it might lead listeners to think that Reid is actually being called a definition-one racist (a normal meaning of “racist”), since that’s a more standard definition.

I'm not willing to dumb down the conversation like this. I said quite clearly that Reid wasn't a Type 1 racist. I think there is something else he was doing that was bad, and I'm using a proposed redefinition of the word to inspire critical thought about how bad it is.

Political controversy ensued following remarks [Senator] Lott made on December 5, 2002 at the 100th birthday party of Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Thurmond ran for President of the United States in 1948 on the Dixiecrat (or States' Rights) ticket. Lott said: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

Thurmond had based his presidential campaign largely on an explicit racial segregation platform. Lott had attracted controversy before in issues relating to civil rights. As a Congressman, he voted against renewal of the Voting Rights Act, voted against the continuation of the Civil Rights Act and opposed making Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday a federal holiday. The Washington Post reported that Lott had made similar comments about Thurmond's candidacy in a 1980 rally. Lott gave an interview with Black Entertainment Television explaining himself and repudiating Thurmond's former views.

Lott resigned as Senate Republican Leader on December 20, 2002. Bill Frist of Tennessee was later elected to the leadership position. In the book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig argues that Lott's resignation would not have occurred had it not been for the effect of Internet blogs. He says that though the story "disappear[ed] from the mainstream press within forty-eight hours", "bloggers kept researching the story" until, "[f]inally, the story broke back into the mainstream press."

Harry Reid is an old school racist. Reid's racist attitudes come from the racism of the previous generation of Mormonism, which didn't allow full membership of blacks into the Mormon Church until 1978.

Here is how you answer the Reid question: Answer this:

Were the people who saw the talents of Sammy Davis Jr and Nat King Cole in the 50's and 60's and used them but did not let them enter by the front door or use the same bathroom racist? Or did their good deeds in hiring these black entertainers take way their aquiescence to racist attitudes and going along with clearly racist policies?

I have a lot of problems with the leadership Steele is giving to the RNC, but he nailed it. If Lott's comments are the standard, Reid has no choice.

Does that mean he'll step down? Not on your life. While hearing about the story over the weekend, my first thought was, "what does the Congressional Black Caucus have to say?" This morning I found out that they gave him a complete pass.

Yet another example of the vacuous value system that dictates Democratic behavior these days.

I didn't think Trent Lott was a racist then, nor do I think Harry Reid is a racist now. What they are, are examples of their millieux and generations (remember, Harry Reid is 70 years old and a Mormon from Nevada) speaking to people who understood what they meant.

What Reid said isn't exactly racist. As PatHMV said, it's racially offensive. Today, the director of the NAACP went on Fox News to say he wasn't offended by Reid's remarks, and that is the position of his organisation.

I wonder if that would be their official position if they had heard it was "Sarah Palin" or "John McCain" who had said what Reid did, and not the Nevadan.

Chances are they would crucify them, ask for an immediate apology tour (like they did with Imus) alongside a triumphant Al Sharpton, and then tar and feather them with this incident whenever their names came up.

The war of throwing the "You are a ...ist" is getting boring. The 1960s opened the can of worms that MLK and the GOP finally dealt with ending the Jim Crow era. But the victors were said to be Activists and then went on to get the same favors for women, Indiginous tribes, and disabled people. Hurray. The victors now routinely claim that the mere recognition of a category named Negro, or Female, or Indian, or Cripple is illegal and requires a great public Resignation and appropriation of even more Money Grants to the wounded victims. That is the world that the Democrats claim as their own. Therefoe a Democrat leader needs to Resign too. A morman named Romney would be publicly destroyed for such thinking; so why is a Morman like Reid immune?

The fact that the CBC and the rest of the lockstep moonbats want to excuse Reid's use of the not quite N-word in describing Barry's "dialect" exposes them for what they are.Hypocrites trading on the history and misery of racial minorities in order to accumulate money and power. They should all be ashamed of themselves, and their supporters share the blame.

when the Democratic Parth is shooting itself in the foot, its time holster your weapon.

Or at the very least take care to not to overplay your hand. It would be a far better thing for a wounded Reid to say where he is and be a poster boy for who and what the Dems are, and then be taken down by his constituents next November.

He's not saying that he wouldn't vote for Obama, or for another black fellow, but that the public might give him a chance, because he was light-skinned and didn't talk in ebonics.

It was a fairly shrewd assessment, is all.

Obama had to get a huge segment of the white population to vote for him in order to win. He got that. And that he probably did is probably partially because he hails from Eastern Africa, and he grew up outside of any black demographic that would have skewed his speech toward ebonics.

So he looked white and talked white, and yet could probably get many white leftists who wanted to feel good for voting for a black.

Now if only Hillary had more clearly resembled a man, but there was that crying jab in the restaurant, which wasn't manly!

Come on now. If it had been a Republican who had offered up that evaluation about Obama's candidacy, like, say, if it had been Karl Rove who said it, no matter how flattering and complmentary his intentions, he'd have been absolutely skewered.

What they are, are examples of their millieux and generations (remember, Harry Reid is 70 years old and a Mormon from Nevada) speaking to people who understood what they meant.

I’ll have to respectfully disagree with that assessment. I’m not buying the ‘I’m old school’ excuse, particularly when they come from individuals who would not skip a beat in condemning a conservative for uttering a similar statement. What Reid said was nothing more than the typical liberal mindset that a black person can be acceptable among polite company provided they’re one of the ‘Huxtables’.

In fact, I am stunned that he would claim that this comment was supposed to be taken in context of saying something positive about Obama? I have to wonder what the African-American population who are of a shade darker and have that unfortunate accent think of the Senate Majority Leader’s comment.

It is not really rascist, but it is racialist - meaning looking at everything through the prism of race, something Obama does quite routinely. Of course, had a Repub said it they would be crucified.

Remember, Reid is the guy who insulted the quality of Clarence Thomas' legal writing, and then could not provide a single example. Clearly Reid has no problem with about 80% of African Americans - the Democrat kind.

Politically, a wounded Reid is much better than a clean, articulate replacement.

No, the statement is not strictly racist. But then again, neither was Imus'...or Lott's...or Limbaugh's...or any other of a myriad of racially-charged incidents we've had over the last couple of decades.

Althouse's question is, perhaps, misworded for the discussion she intended to take place. Possibly, it should be "should Reid step down?".

The statement wasn't racist in and of itself given the words included. However, if you look at it in the context of the paternalism blacks in America are really starting to rail against (more evidence mounts all the time), this was unbelievably stupid.

I stand by Steele's comment. It doesn't matter if it was racist. If Lott's removal is the standard, Reid must go.

One further point, though. If you want a GOP senator in Reid's seat, keep yer frikkin' voice down or the DNC will pull a Dodd in Colorado.

"Preferences for and prejudices toward racial characteristics can be more or less ugly, but I think the word "racism" should denote a belief that members of certain identifiable racial groups are clearly inferior to members of other racial groups and therefore do not deserve equal human rights. Racism is an ideological belief and a racist is a true believer in that ideology."

Wake me up when Harry Reid voices full throated support for white supremacy, which is what Trent Lott did.

Keep digging, repubs. Acting offended by what Reid said is sheer opportunism fed by fantasies of revenge, and I doubt it attracts a single non-white voter to your side. Believe it or not, most people aren't as stupid as you think they are.

If by "racist," you mean somebody who feels antagonism toward black people, then Harry Reid isn't a racist. Harry Reid thinks we are racists.

If by "racist" you mean somebody who would use other people's feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power, then Harry Reid is a racist.

There's an intermediate position, though, which is -- as Lincolntf suggests -- the paternalist position that Blacks are inferior in some way, and cannot be held to the same standards as people of other races. This isn't necessarily coupled with antagonism towards Blacks. Thus, the fact that Reid was promoting Obama is pretty much meaningless, if we're looking for racism. It's like praising a Black politician for being able to speak with a broadcast-standard US Midwestern dialect -- the fact of the praise itself encodes racist assumptions about (a) the inferiority of AAVE dialects, and (b) the inability of most Black Americans to speak the standard dialect.

That said, other than the somewhat peculiar use of the antiquated term "Negro," Reid's statements were mostly just projecting racism onto other people, without necessarily agreeing with the underlying assumptions, racist or otherwise. Even the "Negro dialect" crack is in the context of Obama's electibility. So the remarks were offensive, but not really offensive to Black people. More offensive to everyone who isn't Black, and doesn't care about whether Obama was a light-skinned Black, or whether he can speak standard English.

I have to wonder what the African-American population who are of a shade darker and have that unfortunate accent think of the Senate Majority Leader’s comment.

Arturius, they know they are behind the 8-ball socially. I have a "light-skinned" black friend, of Jack and Jill background, who tells me her mother faced enormous pressure from her family because her own dad was pitch black and socially undistinguished.

White people have been upwardly mobile in the US forever, and part of that means that you have to alter your accent, become more conscious of your grammar, how you dress, etc. to be better able to fit in with the crowd you now belong to. It is thought that Black Americans face less pressure, certainly in the post-Civil Rights era, to change because it's seen as being less "real".

It's interesting to speculate if Senator Reid would've mentioned the "Negro dialect" in the 1950s about Dr. Ralph Bunche, for example.

Back then, it was not about being ghetto but about sounding like you were raised on a plantation like Bojangles Bill Robinson or Jack Benny's valet, Rochester.

He may not be racist, technically. What I believe his sin here to be paternalism. This is the "next big thing" in race politics. I say this because not only are the pundits on both side mentioning it more, the rank and file people I deal with, of all stripes, have had it with this so-called soft-racism or the racism of lowered expectations.

If you believe innately that an entire group of people produce exceptional examples that cut against the norm (dark skin, "negro" dialect) then regardless of whether you dislike that group as a whole, you're judging them by a different standard.

I have never accepted vicarious victimization. Only the target group can say if a remark is racist or not.

If by "racist" you mean somebody who would use other people's feelings about race in a purely instrumental way to amass political power, then Harry Reid is a racist.

By this definition, every politician is a racist. Harry Reid commented that Obama was not black enough in his speech and appearance to trigger the white majority to vote against him. This problem was avoided in every previous Presidential election by running only white candidates.

where I grew up the only people who would ever have used that term would be upper class racists. Who uses the word negro to describe anything with respect to African Americans today ? negro music ? negro clothes ? negro attitude ? see what I mean ...

its an old fashined word and old back to the days when the word was not benign ...

I can't imagine ever thinking about things in that context unless I had always thought about them using that terminology aka "negro" ... and 30 years ago the term negro was not intended as a positive refernce ... its not really today either ...

Who uses the word negro to describe anything with respect to African Americans today ?

My mother, who is a foreigner, for one. She thinks it's politer than "black". I have tried to explain, and that one day she'll get into the exact trouble we see Reid getting into today, but she doesn't get it.

Acting offended by what Reid said is sheer opportunism fed by fantasies of revenge, and I doubt it attracts a single non-white voter to your side.

I don't think the GOP is offended, simply pointing out the absolute double standard that exists when a liberal Democrat shows thier true colors.

Keep in mind that Lott paid the price for praising a 90+ year old colleague who ran on a segregationist ticket when most on this forum probably weren't a twinkle in thier father's eye. Why that stokes fire in some bellies while Robert Byrd can still get a pass is beyond my comprehension.

To be quite honest Montagne, if I were a 'non-white' voter with even a modicum of intelligence, I would be asking myself why I should continue to support a party that purports to be on my side yet thinks the postive aspects of my particular demographic would be having light skin and not having a particular accent.

and 30 years ago the term negro was not intended as a positive refernce

Nonsense. I'm old enough to remember when the word Negro or colored, was the way to describe blacks/African Americans (what they're called today). Back in the early to mid 1960s, if you called an AA black, that would have been considered racist. If you used the term African American, nobody would have known what you were talking about.

That wasn't my point, but rather did Reid's comment perhaps take the pennies off their eyes to realize that the party that they hitched thier horse to doesn't have a 'positive view' of them unless they have the appropriate skin shade and accent.

Also, the 'dialect' comment is ridiculous since the only way Obama would know AAVE* (the current term used by linguists) is if he set out to learn it as an adult, the same way some British actors learn to speak American.

I don't know if he's done that, but it certainly wasn't part of his cultural heritage growing up.

I'm not sure if it's part of his wife's language background or not. Certainly many African Americans can codeswitch between AAVE and SAE. I wouldn't be surprised if she can speak AAVE when and if she wants and I wouldn't be surprised if she can't.

I'm not sure if the comparison to Lott is an good one. After all, the White House is the one that wanted Lott gone (well, one of many), so they used Lott's words against him. I'm certain that if Obama wanted Reid out of the speaker's position, he'd be working to get that done using the racist angle.

Reid's statement was racially offensive to me, a white woman, because he assumes that I am racist, that I care about how dark a person's skin is, or what "dialect" (WTF? why not "accent"?) they speak with. My problems with Obama have everything to do with his policies and nothing to do with his skin color. I'm with the Crack Emcee on this one -- it's 2010, why are we talking about this?

Victoria: don't fret about your mom. In the real world, most people cut members of older generations a lot of slack. My mom still uses the term "colored." I cringe every single time, but she's in her 80s and not about to change.

I'm certain that if Obama wanted Reid out of the speaker's position, he'd be working to get that done using the racist angle.

Well, then, on top of being incompetent, Obama is a fool because Reid is a dead duck come November anyhow.

If Obama were really serious about passing his programmes, he would have issued a lambasting communiqué about Reid, and then sat back and watched Chuck Schumer become a much more weasely, and successful, Senate Majority Leader.

Also, the 'dialect' comment is ridiculous since the only way Obama would know AAVE* (the current term used by linguists) is if he set out to learn it as an adult, the same way some British actors learn to speak American.

My mom still uses the term "colored." I cringe every single time, but she's in her 80s and not about to change.

Oh, I shouldn't worry. The new hip locution is "people of colour," so it's only a matter of time before we come full circle, and become "coloured people" again.

Incidentally, who ever came up with that ridiculous term "people of colour" ought to be shot. It's absolutely the most nails-on-chalkboard phrase in the whole panoply of modern newspeak. I hate it so, so much.

Victoria: don't fret about your mom. In the real world, most people cut members of older generations a lot of slack. My mom still uses the term "colored." I cringe every single time, but she's in her 80s and not about to change.

I should feel okay, even with your reassurance, Joan, but I still worry about her. I am frightened she'll be around some black person one day, who won't understand.

ON TOP OF EVERYTHING, my mother uses the term "Negro" because she is trying to be kind to black people. Now, you can say it's paternalistic, and yes it is, but she has absolutely no hatred in her heart.

I know my mother, but I don't know Harry Reid. I suspect he may have said what he did, echoing my mother's attitude, but I do not know for sure.

What I do know, is that this is about a double standard between Democrats and Republicans talking about racialist terms.

As an ex-lefty and ex-faculty member of an historically black university I have observed that most progressives are of the opinion that blacks can't make it without the help of whites. Does that make them racists or caring human beings? Most conservatives don't think much about race one way or the other and are baffled when they are labeled as racists because their level of caring doesn't measure up. It is all rather stupid, frankly and the ultra progressives like Reid and Pelosi are from parts of the country where there are quite small populations of blacks. Reid made what he perceived as a keen observation. I am not sympathetic to Lott since he is from the south and should have had a much greater sensitivity to the matter than someone from Nevada or California. Like Reid his comments were not intended to be harmful.

Reid acknowledged privately an element of racism (if subconscious) in white Americans and that African Americans that have lighter skin and have a standard mainstream way of speaking are more palatable to whites. He also acknowledged that politicians (and good communicators generally) speak differently to different audiences. The only thing controversial is the odd use of the antiquated word "Negro" and the taboo suggestion that racism might still exist in America.

You can't be a racist if you're black or a Democrat. The Lefties say so all the time.

Of course, it's fascinating to recall the first scandal of that friend of black Americans, William Jefferson Blyth III, involved cheating a qualified black woman out of a state job so his girlfriend, Gennifer Flowers, could be put on the AR payroll.

Of course, what Reid said was racist. The fact that somebody like Al Sharpton is shilling for him is no shock. Or, for that matter, that George Will is trying to cover for him - we must be gentlemen, you know.

Montagne Montaigne said...

Wake me up when ...

I thought you were a somnambulist.

vbspurs said...

My mother, who is a foreigner, for one. She thinks it's politer than "black". I have tried to explain, and that one day she'll get into the exact trouble we see Reid getting into today, but she doesn't get it.

When I was a kid, black was a pejorative. You said, "colored", the acceptable term, or, "Negro", which was considered respectful.

This began as a gotcha game forty years ago, run by people like Jesse Jackson. First, you had to say black, then Afro-American, now African-American. Trust me, they'll come up with something else in a few years.

You're right, vb, Mom will get into trouble probably, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with Negro or colored. A lot of good people in this country's history were proud to be called either and often put their lives on the line for the privilege.

Yes, because there are no "racial issues" to be talked about. Harry Reid is no more of a racist than you are - he's just a stupid man. It doesn't matter "what the meaning of racist is" but whether or not he's exposed his unworthiness for the job - which he has.

White folks arguing over racism may seem like a positive development in your own eyes but it just looks like a nonsensical group back-slap to me because there's nothing but y'all and your attitudes (pro-and-con) that stand in my way, either way. I want out of the racial bubble - not to constantly be dragged into it.

By that definition, the Republican Party's Southern strategy was racist, even Republican President since Nixon has been a racist, Bob Corker is a racist, and the Clintons are racists.

And Obama too, by cranking up the race-baiting in order to win the Black primary vote away from Clinton. As mentioned before in this thread, every politician has taken advantage of private racism, if only in the form of receiving the votes of racists who voted for or against a politician because of his/her race.

And Obama too, by cranking up the race-baiting in order to win the Black primary vote away from Clinton.

My point was that the definition was absurd, because it covers too many people. Even if it weren't an absurd definition, I do not recollect any Obama race-baiting during the primaries. You must live in another dimension.

If one comment made by Harry Reid can outweigh all of his votes made in the name of civil rights (whether they did any good is another question) then we've really lost sight of reality.

I don't care what goes on in politicians' heads. I care what they do. Harry Reid clearly isn't a racist by behavior. Definitely not in his votes. So why all this angst over a few words?

So, the Democrats defending him are actually in the right. They know he's done more for them than can be undone by a couple sentences.

There's also the wonderful Derbyshire retort to anyone who calls him "racist"- "but is it true?" Clearly, Reid is saying something that is true. Obama would not have been elected if he acted like Rev. Sharpton. Punishing politicians for saying things that are true is not conducive to a healthy public discourse. I love Joe Biden because his "gaffes" are usually things that are true that no one dares to say.

Maybe you're living in a cocoon. Aside, can I say "cocoon" without someone saying that I made a racist remark?

Are you not aware the The Dems & the MSM (but I repeat myself) spend most of their time attacking their favorite bete noire like Sarah Palin & Trig, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Rush, Ronald Reagan, or Herbert Hoover. Aside, can I say “bete noire” without someone saying that I made a racist remark?

The important thing here is not whether Reid made a racist remark (no brainer except for robotic Dem apologists), but the difference in the treatment of Lott's certified racist remark vs, the yawn over Reid's, Biden's, Clinton's, & KKK Byrd's “what, racist?” remarks. (Commenting on Obama’s skin and “non-Negro dialect” are, really, to those of us with the secret decoder ring, “positive things”.

Crack, I want out of the racial bubble, too. But every time I turn around, it seems, there are Democrats accusing me of being racist because of utterly non-racial political policies I advocate. I personally think that "racist" should be seen as a truly insulting slur, and it should be used only on rare occasions of actual racism. Thus, I fight back, hard, whenever I hear idiot Democrats use the word against people like Rush Limbaugh and Republicans or conservatives in general.

FLS, in addition to what others said, about the ridiculousness of a standard where only the officially aggrieved group may complain about something's offensiveness, I personally know one African-American man, a lawyer, who told me on more than one occasion how offensive he finds it when someone compliments him as being "well spoken" or "articulate."

I do not recollect any Obama race-baiting during the primaries. You must live in another dimension.

When Bill Clinton said that there was a different standard being applied to the candidates in the Democratic primaries, he was called a racist by Obama's supporters, and even Obama made a comment about that following the South Carolina primary, calling it the hallmarks of the politics of racism.

""So hold on a second," Obama told reporters with a chuckle. "So former President Clinton dismissed my victory in South Carolina as being similar to Jesse Jackson and he is suggesting that somehow I had something to do with it? OK, well, you better ask him what he meant by that.""

This is one of the many occasions when opponents of Barack Obama are smeared with the racist label. To argue contrary to that, is disingenuous at best.

Racism has only one practical meaning in this country, and we all know what that is. Harry Reid is a member in good standing of the Democratic Party, ipso facto not a racist.Racist is a meaningless pejorative employed chiefly by the rhetorically challenged as a means of disrupting a debate before logical conclusions can be drawn, much like overturning a chessboard in a fit of pique.

If one comment made by Harry Reid can outweigh all of his votes made in the name of civil rights (whether they did any good is another question) then we've really lost sight of reality.I don't care what goes on in politicians' heads. I care what they do. Harry Reid clearly isn't a racist by behavior. Definitely not in his votes. So why all this angst over a few words?

I think you’re missing the point. Conservatives have to fight charges of racism simply because they believe people should be judged on their merits as opposed to skin color (hence opposition to affirmative action or quotas for example). Another commenter made the excellent description that Reid’s comments were paternalistic, in sense that being light-skinned and having a non-Negro accent were positive aspects of Obama and by implication, attributes that other African-Americans should aspire to since evidently in Reid’s world, that’s the path to success. In other words, Reid thinks they’re inferior, but if Democrats support legislation that will enable them to overcome such genetic drawbacks.

Quite frankly your comment is breathtaking since it appears as long as one votes the ‘right way’, one can hold whatever despicable views they want. Sort of the political version of buying indulgencies.

But who cares what views politicians hold if it's not reflected in their votes?

LBJ got the Civil Rights Act passed. I doubt he had much love for African-Americans. What matters more?

What politicians think or tell their friends doesn't affect me at all. It's the laws that come down that matter. I'm not interested in a politician's personal salvation.

Yes, conservatives are constantly being called racist when they are not. The solution is to refuse to allow racism to be used as a smear in the absence of proof. Make people prove it by showing concrete actions. When you let offhand remarks or speculation about what people think cloud debate, you've lost the fight. No one can ever disprove what they are thinking, only what they've done.

Are the Democrats guilt of the "soft bigotry of low expectations?"Yes! But that's only evident through the results of their actions. Affirmative action has all kinds of drawbacks. Lenient welfare rules had catastrophic results. We can see that.

The only way to get any progress on race anymore is to look at reality, how people are actually hurt by stupid policies.

I think people are confusing racism for being a moron. The man is dumb, so who cares if he harbors these types of sentiments towards blacks? So President Barely has no black dialect, would you then characterize him as an Uncle Tom because he speaks like a white man. Afterall, Biden himself called President Barely a clean and articulate black, as if to expunge the image of him being a dirty ghetto welfare nigger. What Reid's real problem is, is the way he's conducted himself in the Senate. What his other real problem is, is the way he's conducted himself ethically in business and legislative dealings. At this point Patrick Leahey looks like a Rhoades scholar compared to read and I think Leahey is one of the dumbest men on earth. Stunningly stupid.

A morman named Romney would be publicly destroyed for such thinking; so why is a Morman like Reid immune?

Not only Romney but also the Mormon Church itself would have been in for a good trashing from the bien-pensant Left if Romney or any other Mormon Republican had said such a thing.

Oy, this is getting to be a bit much. Eventually, this gotcha' game has to end soon.

It will end when the Republicans grow a pair and start running underhanded, unfair, inflammatory attack ads repeating the words of Democratic racists like Reid and Byrd, until they are hounded out of their jobs. If they're too genteel for that, then some swiftboat type groups should step up to the plate. But it's not like the Republicans stand to lose any black votes by stirring things up.

Alinsky rules apply. Destroy them with their own rules and make it personal. Make it hurt for individuals. Hit them again and again and again until careers And reputations are destroyed, and families are bankrupted. They'll get the message soon enough.

I am ready for all out war on the Left. We've been nice guys way too long.

Affirmative action has all kinds of drawbacks. Lenient welfare rules had catastrophic results. We can see that.

Well conservatives saw that and were roundly denounced as racists when AA is opposed or when welfare reform was carried to the forefront.

What is more insulting, a party that asks you to succeed in your merits rather than skin color or a party that says your skin color is an obstacle to success and we need to pass laws because you can't do it on your own?

Its my observation that most Republicans are well past the days of institutionalized racism but for Democrats every day is Selma 1965.

That's what I meant by I'm affected (pro-or-con) by what attitudes y'all hold. Racist or not, I'll never be allowed to be a human being as you envision yourselves.

Crack, I'm just a troll, but if you read this, I hope you know that using the you plural doesn't apply to all Americans.

In fact, I'm betting Reid is wrong: If the right man or woman were qualified and able to make it past the party gatekeepers, he or she would be elected regardless of physical looks, if their policies and leadership qualities were attractive enough.

Ironically, the worse the economic and foreign policy situation gets, the more likely we are to evaluate on performance standards, and not looks or estimations of some other artificial measure.

The fact that the CBC and the rest of the lockstep moonbats want to excuse Reid's use of the not quite N-word in describing Barry's "dialect" exposes them for what they are.

"Negro" is now the "not quite N-word?" When did that happen? A "Negro" is a dark-skinned person from Africa or whose ancestors were from Africa. I realize it's not a word much in use these days in the US (except perhaps by those associated with the UNCF), but when did it become a pejorative (or not-quite pejorative)?

There's so much concomitant bullshit to accusations of "racist" and "racism" anymore that such words and such accusations have lost all meaning. The fact is that if Stanley Ann Dunham had bedded down with a garden variety, white American Marxist, the world probably would never have given their issue a second look. Racist?

Harry Reid thought it was skin tone, and that was the most ignorant thing he said. I think he was trying to explain the success of Obama and the failure of other black candidates. I see someone trying to explain something that we don't have a vocabulary for, because it's an off-limits topic.

Obama is nothing like Rev. Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, which is why he got irritated when Bill Clinton made that comparison during the primaries.

John Lynch, I'd agree. It's quite reasonable to think that Obama had a better chance than most black candidates because of his skin color and way of speaking. His comments aren't racist, he's explaining this part of our culture.

I am utterly bored with this ludicrous controversy regarding the Majority Leader’s supposed racist remarks and its consequences. The Democratic Party is nothing more than the golem of cognitive dissonance – a walking, talking manifestation of axiomatic hypocrisy. To expect the Democrats and their ideological fellow travelers to treat Harry Reid as severely as they did Trent Lott is to expect a miraculous transfiguration of the Party into something it hasn’t been since the days of Hubert Humphrey.

The Democratic Party is nothing more than the golem of cognitive dissonance

I looked up golem of cognitive dissonance in the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Guide (3rd edition) and it appears they can only be slayed by a +5 Sword of Rightwing Fury or a druid's spell of Conservative Conversion although that's trickier since there is a +1 chance on a 10D roll for spell reflection turning the caster into the House Speaker but without the botox.

Isn't it sort of weird that we've come to a point where making a comment like Reid's is a HUGE deal where he might have to give up his office, yet actively working to screw over the entire country to amass power and rack up precious kickbacks to the government-favored is just business as usual?

I recall seeing a snippet that the Black Congressional Caucaus is standing behind Harry Reid so there you go. I do find it puzzling they would do so considering Harry's comment implies that Obama won because while he may be black, he isn't, you know, black.

Sen. Barack Obama's chief strategist conceded that the Democratic presidential candidate was referring to his race when he said Republicans were trying to scare voters by suggesting Obama "doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

President-elect Barack Obama's historic campaign brought in close to one billion dollars.

The comment had triggered a charge Thursday from Sen. John McCain's campaign manager that Obama had "played the race card... from the bottom of the deck."

Obama's camp initially denied the remark was a reference to Obama's race.======================

Keep deluding.

(Not to mention the Gates incident this year post election of the post racial president.)

this country is totally fucked--I am reminded of the sheriff in the mississippi county where some negro--african american--or whatever the current PC term is: was lynched--his explanation: "aint that just like a dumb "nigger" to steal more chains than he could swim off with." Thats racism you can deal with--Bill Clinton's coffee remark and Harry Reid's remark are a bit above that but probably more pernicious.

This really isnt about racism--its about the double standard that let Robert Byrd talk about white niggers on national TV and bill clinton talk about serving coffee

Its the fucking democrats--give me a good redneck racist anytime--you know where they stand. For the rest of the libtards--racists to the core but not called on it.

To me, calling Obama a "light-skinned Negro" makes no more sense than calling him a "dark-skinned Caucasian." He's half-white and half-black. Why can't people just live with that, rather than try and make him one or the other? This is not rocket science.

@ former law studentI have yet to hear a black person call Reid's remark "racist." So I have to wonder at the motives of non-blacks who are taking vicarious offense on behalf of black Americans.The motives of Reid’s critics who characterize to the remark as racist are no less suspect than the motives of those who would absolve him. Whenever the hue and cry of racism rears its hoary head the “offended” party seeks to gain ascendancy over the alleged offender. It’s merely one of the dirtier weapons in the modern political arsenal .If racism has any moral dimension or consequence then it must be more than just the perception of a self-indentified aggrieved party.

Reid's comments are most insulting to the American people. He's saying that We the People would never vote for someone with dark skin. That's ridiculous. A bit of received wisdom in dim bulb political circles.

But again, compared with the things Reid has done in office, this doesn't even rank within the top ten acts of his malfeasance.

If racism has any moral dimension or consequence then it must be more than just the perception of a self-indentified aggrieved party.

Racism is rooted in a lack of respect for others, a perception that they are lesser beings than you, not worthy of the same courtesies. Assuming you do not actually disrespect your fellow man, if you accidentally give offense, isn't it easy to apologize?

Racism is rooted in a lack of respect for others, a perception that they are lesser beings than you, not worthy of the same courtesies. Assuming you do not actually disrespect your fellow man, if you accidentally give offense, isn't it easy to apologize?

The Democratic Party is nothing more than the golem of cognitive dissonance

I looked up golem of cognitive dissonance in the Dungeons and Dragons Monster Guide (3rd edition) and it appears they can only be slayed by a +5 Sword of Rightwing Fury or a druid's spell of Conservative Conversion although that's trickier since there is a +1 chance on a 10D roll for spell reflection turning the caster into the House Speaker but without the botox.

Phaw!!! 1st edition is the only one that matters. Besides, I figured casting a cone of silence on them would be good enough. Of course they would have to roll against their saving throw, but even then they would take 1/2 damage from the cone of silence, so all is not bad, we would only get to hear half their bullshit.

The motives behind Reid's remarks can be interpreted (guessed at, really) more than one way, some of them benign. His comments don't bother me.

Both black and white Democrats are choosing to interpret his motives as charitably as possible, and are publicly stating their lack of offense, as is their right. This doesn't bother me, either.

Any conservative saying the exact same words, with even the most benign motives, would be cast by those same Democrats as a racist proto-demon with aspirations of repealing the 13th Amendment. This bothers me.

Any conservative saying the exact same words, with even the most benign motives, would be cast by those same Democrats as a racist proto-demon with aspirations of repealing the 13th Amendment. This bothers me.

Anyone who saw Doug Wilder on Cavuto a few minutes ago got a big education in what a cynical, hypocritical game the word racist has become. Listening to Wilder weaseling will make more than a few people disgusted, angry, or both.

former law student said...

For all you white people reading these comments, y'all means you all.

An exact translation for the white people I grew up with: y'all = youse. "Youse have to come over to my house."

Not really. Y'all is singular, all y'all, when used, is plural. Youse came from Irish immigrants and is interchangeable as plural and singular. Youse guys is generally plural.

Or, as Johnny Hart once put it, the Mason-Dixon Line is the difference between y'all and youse guys.

I'm not saying that African-Americans shouldn't be elected, just that they have to act a certain way to win votes. That's the reality."

"That's what I meant by I'm affected (pro-or-con) by what attitudes y'all hold. Racist or not, I'll never be allowed to be a human being as you envision yourselves."

@ Crack. It goes both ways you know. The acting meme isn't directed JUST at blacks. White people or yellow or any other shade have to also act a certain way to get elected. We are all affected by other's perceptions and attitudes.

Just look at Palin. She isn't in lock step with the demographic that is in power in the Republican party or with the Coastal Elites, yet she is being raked over the coals because she doesn't fit the mold.

Or Tiger Woods, whose background is mostly Asian and California Bay Area elitist. They (the media and others) want to shove him into the "black" ghettoized mold without knowing, really, who is he?

We are all pigeonholed by someone else and held to standards that are either foreign or repulsive. Men, women, black, white. Don't feel alone.

Also....I want to know just what is a "Negro dialect" and who speaks it? Bill Cosby. Thomas Sowell, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, James Earl Jones??? This is like saying there is a 'Caucasian' dialect and expecting that Wm F Buckley speaks and thinks the same as Jeff Foxworthy just because they are a similar shade of pale. Really?

This began as a gotcha game forty years ago, run by people like Jesse Jackson. First, you had to say black, then Afro-American, now African-American. Trust me, they'll come up with something else in a few years.

I think I've posted this here before, but it bears repeating. It's a conversation, from the early 90s, between a couple of friends of mine--Brian, a white guy from Alaska, and Tony, a black guy from Chicago (who then moved to Dallas and went to high school with Vanilla Ice, LOL). It was around the time that "African-American" was starting to enter the lexicon, and I'm guessing that Brian hadn't met many black people in Alaska. The conversation went like this:

BRIAN: So what would you like to be called, black or African-American?TONY: To be totally honest with you, I'd really prefer to be called Tony.

And that pretty much sums up my feelings on the subject; the sooner we start thinking of people as individuals first, rather than as members of groups, the better off we'll all be.

Harry Reid is a tool of epic proportions, but he's not a racist. He was simply pointing out how many racists there are in America. I actually prefer this side of him over anything else he's ever said or done.

I'm loathe to use the term African American ever since attending a speech by Bertice Berry where she described the absurdity of the term. Went something like this, though better:

"If someone comes, kidnaps me, and takes me to another country, is anyone from Africa going to come and get me? Anyone? Any country over there going to send some guys to help me out? No. You know why? Because I'm not an African!

"But the United States? If somebody kidnaps me out of this country, the United States will be there in black helicopters and tanks and special forces guys, and they'll bust in anywhere to get me out and bring me home.

So if Reid is to be believed we saw those were the attributes that allowed 53% of the electorate (the vast majority being non-black) to embrace Barrack Obama. So it seems what you are saying Zachery, is that Reid believes Democrat voters will vote for a black man as long as he isn't too black and doesn't sound black.

Or Tiger Woods, whose background is mostly Asian and California Bay Area elitist. They (the media and others) want to shove him into the "black" ghettoized mold without knowing, really, who is he?

I don't follow golf, so I've probably read more about Woods in the past month than in the past few years all together. But I do get the impression that he's been put more forcefully into the "Black" category now that he's had a sex scandal -- and not by Whites only, mind. A lot of columnists (well, the two or three I read) objecting to his revealed preference for slatternly blondes rather than Blacks were Black too. It's kind of bizarre, particularly for someone like Woods, who really does seem to have thought about himself and his background in an enlightened post-racial way (unlike, say, Obama. Or, for that matter, me).

Of all the threads on the lily-white Althouse blog, this has got to be one of the whitest. A bunch of whites* (who probably rarely encounter a black person in daily life, let alone took stock of [or cared] how they were struck by Reid's comment) arguing over whether a white politician's private acknowledgment of the advantages of a half-black politician's white attributes counts as a personal endorsement of those attributes as more legitimate. No consideration of the idea that Reid can separate his own feelings from what the electorate feels, here. I mean, why on earth would that even matter! Everyone knows that a politician can't separate his own feelings out from those of the voters! (Assuming that the person coming to that conclusion is a narcissistic dumbshit lacking the capacity for a theory of mind).

*The exception here is "Crack Emcee", who merely chimes in to say, in effect, stop it! Stop talking about race and racism! I can't take it anymore! The argument doesn't even matter!

Reid's comment was, as far as anyone knows, a private comment. It was intended for private consumption. What on earth is wrong with acknowledging, privately, that "black" attributes make a candidate less electable on the national level? If he had said such a thing in public, then there would have been moral import to it. If he had commented publicly, as the Clintons did, on Obama's similarity to RFK or Jesse Jackson, then he would have been telegraphing a signal to the electorate their comfort with considering the possibility that he would be assassinated or never capable of getting sufficient votes from whites. But he didn't and hence there is no reason for anyone to conclude that Reid would sympathize with such attitudes.

Reid, like all human beings, is capable of acknowledging attitudes that he doesn't find attractive, that he does not sympathize with, that he doesn't agree with. Furthermore, unless he acknowledges those attitudes in statements to the public, he is not using them to the advantage of the people who do hold to them. He is not endorsing their legitimacy.

Although it would be difficult to believe, this blog has come up with one of the dumbest threads so far within the context of American social norms. Keep relegating your party to one that might never manage to garner a single vote outside of an increasingly shrinking white demographic. Keep pissing on what is common courtesy for how different groups of people come to understand what is polite and respectful and legitimate treatment between those groups. Keep putting the GOP on the road to becoming a rump party.

As I said elsewhere, it would be funny if it weren't so damned pathetic.